California Department of Transportation

Project Management

2000/01 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

II.  SUMMARY OF CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

PM # Description Target 2000/01 Achievement
1
Capital Support in Context
None
Info Only
2
Support / Capital
Trend
46%
3
Quality
TBD
Not available
4
Project Delivery(#)
> 90%
95%
5
Project Delivery (Programmed$)
>100%
109%
6
Days Worked / Day Allotted
<112%
121%
7
Award$ / Programmed$
85%-100%
89%
8
PFE$ / Award$
<100%
97%
9
PE$ / PFE$
<103%
102%
10
Capital Delivery
Not available
Eliminated
11
Act PjD Supp$ / Prog PjD Supp$
TBD
79%
12
Act PjD Supp$ / Prog PjD Supp$
TBD
87%

III.  RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

During the process of developing performance measures, it was decided that program measures would supply indicators to the departmental measures. The capital outlay support program measures provided five indicators for the departmental performance measure "Project Delivery". Two of these indicators are supplied directly by capital support performance measures PM #3 and PM #5; one is a new measure; one is a multiplicative composite of PM #7, PM #8 and PM #9; and one is a weighted average of PM #11 and PM #12. The five indicators for the departmental performance measure "Project Delivery" and their relationship to capital support measures are summarized below:

Departmental Performance Measure-Project Delivery

Corporate Indicator Capital Support Measure
Quality
COS PM#3--Rate Final Product
Time Growth
New Measure
Capital Cost Growth
PM#7 X PM#8 X PM#9
OR:
Capital Delivery
COS PM#5
Support Cost
Weight average of PM#11 and PM#12
OR:

Besides the above indicators, data used in the development of capital support measures PM #1 and PM #2 will be used to supply indicators for the departmental performance measure "Managing Resources". Achieved performance levels for the five indicators for which data are available are presented in the following pages.

A.  Quality Indicator

As stated previously, a methodology, business rules, and the electronic tool necessary for implementation of this measure are expected to be in place during the 2002/03 FY.

B.  Time Growth Indicator

This indicator measures the number of projects scheduled for construction completion (construct contract acceptance, or CCA) that were completed in the fiscal year, as a percentage of the total number of projects scheduled for construction completion in the fiscal year. This measures the Department's ability to complete projects as planned. In 1998/99 and 1999/00 fiscal years, the completion rates were based on overall delivery versus baseline plan developed at the beginning of each fiscal year. This approach was modified in 2000/01 FY to include future fiscal year advanced deliveries and unplanned deliveries in both the overall delivery as well as in the baseline plan. Therefore, the FY 1998/99 and 1999/00 values have been adjusted downward from 58.3% and 81.1% to 47.9% and 68.3% respectively to provide a consistent methodology across all reported fiscal years. Completion rates for the 1998/99 through 2000/01 fiscal years are:

FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01

47.9% 68.3% 81.6%

This is the third year for this performance measurement. The results for the three years clearly indicate a trend in better planning and completion of projects on or ahead of schedule. This trend along with other ongoing efforts will help meet the target goal of 90% for this indicator.

C.  Capital Cost Growth Indicator

The capital cost growth indicator is a composite index that approximates final estimates to original programmed amounts, and is determined by multiplying PMs 7, 8 and 9. It measures the Department's overall success in planning and delivering projects within budget over the entire project life cycle. Achieved performance for project delivery within budget in the 1998/99 through 2000/01 fiscal years are shown below:

FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01

 

83.5% 82.0% 87.9%

It is important to emphasize that the above values are indexes only since, in each fiscal year, they are determined using different sets of projects for each component measure (PMs 7, 8 and 9). However, over time, this indicator can become an effective comparative measure of overall accuracy in estimating, programming and budgeting.

The target or goal for this indicator should be not greater than 100%.

D.  Capital Delivery Indicator

As discussed previously, Performance Measure #5 is reported to the CTC as the measure of capital delivery. It measures the dollar value of projects delivered to the programmed amount for those projects. Or, put in other terms, it is an indicator of the Department's performance in completing the design of programmed projects within or ahead of schedule. Below are the percentage results for the fiscal years from 1996/97 through 2000/01:

FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01
111% 117% 117% 104% 109%

The target or goal for this indicator should be at least 100%.

E.  Support Cost Indicator

This indicator is a weighted average of Performance Measures 11 and 12 obtained by combining total support costs of Environmental, Design, Right of Way and Construction. It is an indicator of the Department's overall success in keeping total support expenditures within project support budgets. Support cost performance levels for the 1998/99 through 2000/01 fiscal years are:

FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01

 

77.6% 82.4% 79.1%

Similar to the Capital Cost Growth Indicator, it should be emphasized that two different sets of projects are involved in the two component measures (PMs #11 and 12). This indicator can also be an effective comparative measure over time as well as a measurement for continuous improvement.

The target for this indicator should be in the range of 80% - 100%.

Previous Page